| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
fscrypt: relax Kconfig dependencies for crypto API algorithms Even if FS encryption has strict functional dependencies on various crypto algorithms and chaining modes. those dependencies could potentially be satisified by other implementations than the generic ones, and no link time dependency exists on the 'depends on' claused defined by CONFIG_FS_ENCRYPTION_ALGS. So let's relax these clauses to 'imply', so that the default behavior is still to pull in those generic algorithms, but in a way that permits them to be disabled again in Kconfig. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> Acked-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> | 5 年前 | |
fscrypt: add inline encryption support Add support for inline encryption to fs/crypto/. With "inline encryption", the block layer handles the decryption/encryption as part of the bio, instead of the filesystem doing the crypto itself via Linux's crypto API. This model is needed in order to take advantage of the inline encryption hardware present on most modern mobile SoCs. To use inline encryption, the filesystem needs to be mounted with '-o inlinecrypt'. Blk-crypto will then be used instead of the traditional filesystem-layer crypto whenever possible to encrypt the contents of any encrypted files in that filesystem. Fscrypt still provides the key and IV to use, and the actual ciphertext on-disk is still the same; therefore it's testable using the existing fscrypt ciphertext verification tests. Note that since blk-crypto has a fallback to Linux's crypto API, and also supports all the encryption modes currently supported by fscrypt, this feature is usable and testable even without actual inline encryption hardware. Per-filesystem changes will be needed to set encryption contexts when submitting bios and to implement the 'inlinecrypt' mount option. This patch just adds the common code. Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com> Reviewed-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200702015607.1215430-3-satyat@google.com Co-developed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> | 5 年前 | |
fscrypt: use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON As per Linus's suggestion (https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=whefxRGyNGzCzG6BVeM=5vnvgb-XhSeFJVxJyAxAF8XRA@mail.gmail.com), use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON. This barely adds any extra overhead, and it makes it so that if any of these ever becomes reachable (they shouldn't, but that's the point), the logs can't be flooded. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320233943.73600-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> | 3 年前 | |
fscrypt: optimize fscrypt_initialize() fscrypt_initialize() is a "one-time init" function that is called whenever the key is set up for any inode on any filesystem. Make it implement "one-time init" more efficiently by not taking a global mutex in the "already initialized case" and doing fewer pointer dereferences. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230406181245.36091-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> | 3 年前 | |
fs: Create a generic is_dot_dotdot() utility stable inclusion from stable-v6.6.54 commit ef83620438d7b08cd66269c2262fcc2007cd5454 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IAZ3K2 Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=ef83620438d7b08cd66269c2262fcc2007cd5454 -------------------------------- commit 42c3732fa8073717dd7d924472f1c0bc5b452fdc upstream. De-duplicate the same functionality in several places by hoisting the is_dot_dotdot() utility function into linux/fs.h. Suggested-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Wen Zhiwei <wenzhiwei@kylinos.cn> | 1 年前 | |
fscrypt: Don't use problematic non-inline crypto engines mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.16-rc7 commit b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ICQ8LW Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 -------------------------------- Make fscrypt no longer use Crypto API drivers for non-inline crypto engines, even when the Crypto API prioritizes them over CPU-based code (which unfortunately it often does). These drivers tend to be really problematic, especially for fscrypt's workload. This commit has no effect on inline crypto engines, which are different and do work well. Specifically, exclude drivers that have CRYPTO_ALG_KERN_DRIVER_ONLY or CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY set. (Later, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC should be excluded too. That's omitted for now to keep this commit backportable, since until recently some CPU-based code had CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC set.) There are two major issues with these drivers: bugs and performance. First, these drivers tend to be buggy. They're fundamentally much more error-prone and harder to test than the CPU-based code. They often don't get tested before kernel releases, and even if they do, the crypto self-tests don't properly test these drivers. Released drivers have en/decrypted or hashed data incorrectly. These bugs cause issues for fscrypt users who often didn't even want to use these drivers, e.g.: - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/32 - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/9 - https://lore.kernel.org/r/PH0PR02MB731916ECDB6C613665863B6CFFAA2@PH0PR02MB7319.namprd02.prod.outlook.com These drivers have also similarly caused issues for dm-crypt users, including data corruption and deadlocks. Since Linux v5.10, dm-crypt has disabled most of them by excluding CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY. Second, these drivers tend to be *much* slower than the CPU-based code. This may seem counterintuitive, but benchmarks clearly show it. There's a *lot* of overhead associated with going to a hardware driver, off the CPU, and back again. To prove this, I gathered as many systems with this type of crypto engine as I could, and I measured synchronous encryption of 4096-byte messages (which matches fscrypt's workload): Intel Emerald Rapids server: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-vaes-avx512 16171 MB/s [CPU-based, Vector AES] qat_aes_xts 289 MB/s [Offload, Intel QuickAssist] Qualcomm SM8650 HDK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 4301 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts-aes-qce 73 MB/s [Offload, Qualcomm Crypto Engine] i.MX 8M Nano LPDDR4 EVK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 647 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts(ecb-aes-caam) 20 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-caam,sha256-lib) 23 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] STM32MP157F-DK2: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-neonbs 13.2 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] xts(stm32-ecb-aes) 3.1 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-neonbs,sha256-lib) 14.7 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] essiv(stm32-cbc-aes,sha256-lib) 3.2 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] Adiantum: adiantum(xchacha12-arm,aes-arm,nhpoly1305-neon) 52.8 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM scalar + NEON] So, there was no case in which the crypto engine was even *close* to being faster. On the first three, which have AES instructions in the CPU, the CPU was 30 to 55 times faster (!). Even on STM32MP157F-DK2 which has a Cortex-A7 CPU that doesn't have AES instructions, AES was over 4 times faster on the CPU. And Adiantum encryption, which is what actually should be used on CPUs like that, was over 17 times faster. Other justifications that have been given for these non-inline crypto engines (almost always coming from the hardware vendors, not actual users) don't seem very plausible either: - The crypto engine throughput could be improved by processing multiple requests concurrently. Currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't do that. This would also be complex, and unhelpful in many cases. 2 of the 4 engines I tested even had only one queue. - Some of the engines, e.g. STM32, support hardware keys. Also currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't support these. Interestingly, the STM32 driver itself doesn't support this either. - Free up CPU for other tasks and/or reduce energy usage. Not very plausible considering the "short" message length, driver overhead, and scheduling overhead. There's just very little time for the CPU to do something else like run another task or enter low-power state, before the message finishes and it's time to process the next one. - Some of these engines resist power analysis and electromagnetic attacks, while the CPU-based crypto generally does not. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, if this benefit requires the use of an off-CPU offload that massively regresses performance and has a low-quality, buggy driver, the price for this hardening (which is not relevant to most fscrypt users, and tends to be incomplete) is just too high. Inline crypto engines are much more promising here, as are on-CPU solutions like RISC-V High Assurance Cryptography. Fixes: b30ab0e03407 ("ext4 crypto: add ext4 encryption facilities") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250704070322.20692-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Conflicts: Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst fs/crypto/fscrypt_private.h fs/crypto/hkdf.c [Context changed] Signed-off-by: Yongjian Sun <sunyongjian1@huawei.com> | 10 个月前 | |
fscrypt: Don't use problematic non-inline crypto engines mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.16-rc7 commit b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ICQ8LW Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 -------------------------------- Make fscrypt no longer use Crypto API drivers for non-inline crypto engines, even when the Crypto API prioritizes them over CPU-based code (which unfortunately it often does). These drivers tend to be really problematic, especially for fscrypt's workload. This commit has no effect on inline crypto engines, which are different and do work well. Specifically, exclude drivers that have CRYPTO_ALG_KERN_DRIVER_ONLY or CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY set. (Later, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC should be excluded too. That's omitted for now to keep this commit backportable, since until recently some CPU-based code had CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC set.) There are two major issues with these drivers: bugs and performance. First, these drivers tend to be buggy. They're fundamentally much more error-prone and harder to test than the CPU-based code. They often don't get tested before kernel releases, and even if they do, the crypto self-tests don't properly test these drivers. Released drivers have en/decrypted or hashed data incorrectly. These bugs cause issues for fscrypt users who often didn't even want to use these drivers, e.g.: - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/32 - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/9 - https://lore.kernel.org/r/PH0PR02MB731916ECDB6C613665863B6CFFAA2@PH0PR02MB7319.namprd02.prod.outlook.com These drivers have also similarly caused issues for dm-crypt users, including data corruption and deadlocks. Since Linux v5.10, dm-crypt has disabled most of them by excluding CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY. Second, these drivers tend to be *much* slower than the CPU-based code. This may seem counterintuitive, but benchmarks clearly show it. There's a *lot* of overhead associated with going to a hardware driver, off the CPU, and back again. To prove this, I gathered as many systems with this type of crypto engine as I could, and I measured synchronous encryption of 4096-byte messages (which matches fscrypt's workload): Intel Emerald Rapids server: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-vaes-avx512 16171 MB/s [CPU-based, Vector AES] qat_aes_xts 289 MB/s [Offload, Intel QuickAssist] Qualcomm SM8650 HDK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 4301 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts-aes-qce 73 MB/s [Offload, Qualcomm Crypto Engine] i.MX 8M Nano LPDDR4 EVK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 647 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts(ecb-aes-caam) 20 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-caam,sha256-lib) 23 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] STM32MP157F-DK2: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-neonbs 13.2 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] xts(stm32-ecb-aes) 3.1 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-neonbs,sha256-lib) 14.7 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] essiv(stm32-cbc-aes,sha256-lib) 3.2 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] Adiantum: adiantum(xchacha12-arm,aes-arm,nhpoly1305-neon) 52.8 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM scalar + NEON] So, there was no case in which the crypto engine was even *close* to being faster. On the first three, which have AES instructions in the CPU, the CPU was 30 to 55 times faster (!). Even on STM32MP157F-DK2 which has a Cortex-A7 CPU that doesn't have AES instructions, AES was over 4 times faster on the CPU. And Adiantum encryption, which is what actually should be used on CPUs like that, was over 17 times faster. Other justifications that have been given for these non-inline crypto engines (almost always coming from the hardware vendors, not actual users) don't seem very plausible either: - The crypto engine throughput could be improved by processing multiple requests concurrently. Currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't do that. This would also be complex, and unhelpful in many cases. 2 of the 4 engines I tested even had only one queue. - Some of the engines, e.g. STM32, support hardware keys. Also currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't support these. Interestingly, the STM32 driver itself doesn't support this either. - Free up CPU for other tasks and/or reduce energy usage. Not very plausible considering the "short" message length, driver overhead, and scheduling overhead. There's just very little time for the CPU to do something else like run another task or enter low-power state, before the message finishes and it's time to process the next one. - Some of these engines resist power analysis and electromagnetic attacks, while the CPU-based crypto generally does not. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, if this benefit requires the use of an off-CPU offload that massively regresses performance and has a low-quality, buggy driver, the price for this hardening (which is not relevant to most fscrypt users, and tends to be incomplete) is just too high. Inline crypto engines are much more promising here, as are on-CPU solutions like RISC-V High Assurance Cryptography. Fixes: b30ab0e03407 ("ext4 crypto: add ext4 encryption facilities") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250704070322.20692-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Conflicts: Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst fs/crypto/fscrypt_private.h fs/crypto/hkdf.c [Context changed] Signed-off-by: Yongjian Sun <sunyongjian1@huawei.com> | 10 个月前 | |
fscrypt: Replace 1-element array with flexible array 1-element arrays are deprecated and are being replaced with C99 flexible arrays[1]. As sizes were being calculated with the extra byte intentionally, propagate the difference so there is no change in binary output. [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79 Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230523165458.gonna.580-kees@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> | 3 年前 | |
blk-crypto: add a blk_crypto_config_supported_natively helper Add a blk_crypto_config_supported_natively helper that wraps __blk_crypto_cfg_supported to retrieve the crypto_profile from the request queue. With this fscrypt can stop including blk-crypto-profile.h and rely on the public consumer interface in blk-crypto.h. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221114042944.1009870-3-hch@lst.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> | 3 年前 | |
fscrypt: use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON As per Linus's suggestion (https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=whefxRGyNGzCzG6BVeM=5vnvgb-XhSeFJVxJyAxAF8XRA@mail.gmail.com), use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON. This barely adds any extra overhead, and it makes it so that if any of these ever becomes reachable (they shouldn't, but that's the point), the logs can't be flooded. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320233943.73600-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> | 3 年前 | |
fscrypt: Don't use problematic non-inline crypto engines mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.16-rc7 commit b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ICQ8LW Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 -------------------------------- Make fscrypt no longer use Crypto API drivers for non-inline crypto engines, even when the Crypto API prioritizes them over CPU-based code (which unfortunately it often does). These drivers tend to be really problematic, especially for fscrypt's workload. This commit has no effect on inline crypto engines, which are different and do work well. Specifically, exclude drivers that have CRYPTO_ALG_KERN_DRIVER_ONLY or CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY set. (Later, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC should be excluded too. That's omitted for now to keep this commit backportable, since until recently some CPU-based code had CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC set.) There are two major issues with these drivers: bugs and performance. First, these drivers tend to be buggy. They're fundamentally much more error-prone and harder to test than the CPU-based code. They often don't get tested before kernel releases, and even if they do, the crypto self-tests don't properly test these drivers. Released drivers have en/decrypted or hashed data incorrectly. These bugs cause issues for fscrypt users who often didn't even want to use these drivers, e.g.: - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/32 - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/9 - https://lore.kernel.org/r/PH0PR02MB731916ECDB6C613665863B6CFFAA2@PH0PR02MB7319.namprd02.prod.outlook.com These drivers have also similarly caused issues for dm-crypt users, including data corruption and deadlocks. Since Linux v5.10, dm-crypt has disabled most of them by excluding CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY. Second, these drivers tend to be *much* slower than the CPU-based code. This may seem counterintuitive, but benchmarks clearly show it. There's a *lot* of overhead associated with going to a hardware driver, off the CPU, and back again. To prove this, I gathered as many systems with this type of crypto engine as I could, and I measured synchronous encryption of 4096-byte messages (which matches fscrypt's workload): Intel Emerald Rapids server: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-vaes-avx512 16171 MB/s [CPU-based, Vector AES] qat_aes_xts 289 MB/s [Offload, Intel QuickAssist] Qualcomm SM8650 HDK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 4301 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts-aes-qce 73 MB/s [Offload, Qualcomm Crypto Engine] i.MX 8M Nano LPDDR4 EVK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 647 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts(ecb-aes-caam) 20 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-caam,sha256-lib) 23 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] STM32MP157F-DK2: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-neonbs 13.2 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] xts(stm32-ecb-aes) 3.1 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-neonbs,sha256-lib) 14.7 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] essiv(stm32-cbc-aes,sha256-lib) 3.2 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] Adiantum: adiantum(xchacha12-arm,aes-arm,nhpoly1305-neon) 52.8 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM scalar + NEON] So, there was no case in which the crypto engine was even *close* to being faster. On the first three, which have AES instructions in the CPU, the CPU was 30 to 55 times faster (!). Even on STM32MP157F-DK2 which has a Cortex-A7 CPU that doesn't have AES instructions, AES was over 4 times faster on the CPU. And Adiantum encryption, which is what actually should be used on CPUs like that, was over 17 times faster. Other justifications that have been given for these non-inline crypto engines (almost always coming from the hardware vendors, not actual users) don't seem very plausible either: - The crypto engine throughput could be improved by processing multiple requests concurrently. Currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't do that. This would also be complex, and unhelpful in many cases. 2 of the 4 engines I tested even had only one queue. - Some of the engines, e.g. STM32, support hardware keys. Also currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't support these. Interestingly, the STM32 driver itself doesn't support this either. - Free up CPU for other tasks and/or reduce energy usage. Not very plausible considering the "short" message length, driver overhead, and scheduling overhead. There's just very little time for the CPU to do something else like run another task or enter low-power state, before the message finishes and it's time to process the next one. - Some of these engines resist power analysis and electromagnetic attacks, while the CPU-based crypto generally does not. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, if this benefit requires the use of an off-CPU offload that massively regresses performance and has a low-quality, buggy driver, the price for this hardening (which is not relevant to most fscrypt users, and tends to be incomplete) is just too high. Inline crypto engines are much more promising here, as are on-CPU solutions like RISC-V High Assurance Cryptography. Fixes: b30ab0e03407 ("ext4 crypto: add ext4 encryption facilities") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250704070322.20692-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Conflicts: Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst fs/crypto/fscrypt_private.h fs/crypto/hkdf.c [Context changed] Signed-off-by: Yongjian Sun <sunyongjian1@huawei.com> | 10 个月前 | |
fscrypt: Don't use problematic non-inline crypto engines mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.16-rc7 commit b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/src-openeuler/kernel/issues/ICQ8LW Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b41c1d8d07906786c60893980d52688f31d114a6 -------------------------------- Make fscrypt no longer use Crypto API drivers for non-inline crypto engines, even when the Crypto API prioritizes them over CPU-based code (which unfortunately it often does). These drivers tend to be really problematic, especially for fscrypt's workload. This commit has no effect on inline crypto engines, which are different and do work well. Specifically, exclude drivers that have CRYPTO_ALG_KERN_DRIVER_ONLY or CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY set. (Later, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC should be excluded too. That's omitted for now to keep this commit backportable, since until recently some CPU-based code had CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC set.) There are two major issues with these drivers: bugs and performance. First, these drivers tend to be buggy. They're fundamentally much more error-prone and harder to test than the CPU-based code. They often don't get tested before kernel releases, and even if they do, the crypto self-tests don't properly test these drivers. Released drivers have en/decrypted or hashed data incorrectly. These bugs cause issues for fscrypt users who often didn't even want to use these drivers, e.g.: - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/32 - https://github.com/google/fscryptctl/issues/9 - https://lore.kernel.org/r/PH0PR02MB731916ECDB6C613665863B6CFFAA2@PH0PR02MB7319.namprd02.prod.outlook.com These drivers have also similarly caused issues for dm-crypt users, including data corruption and deadlocks. Since Linux v5.10, dm-crypt has disabled most of them by excluding CRYPTO_ALG_ALLOCATES_MEMORY. Second, these drivers tend to be *much* slower than the CPU-based code. This may seem counterintuitive, but benchmarks clearly show it. There's a *lot* of overhead associated with going to a hardware driver, off the CPU, and back again. To prove this, I gathered as many systems with this type of crypto engine as I could, and I measured synchronous encryption of 4096-byte messages (which matches fscrypt's workload): Intel Emerald Rapids server: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-vaes-avx512 16171 MB/s [CPU-based, Vector AES] qat_aes_xts 289 MB/s [Offload, Intel QuickAssist] Qualcomm SM8650 HDK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 4301 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts-aes-qce 73 MB/s [Offload, Qualcomm Crypto Engine] i.MX 8M Nano LPDDR4 EVK: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-ce 647 MB/s [CPU-based, ARMv8 Crypto Extensions] xts(ecb-aes-caam) 20 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-caam,sha256-lib) 23 MB/s [Offload, CAAM] STM32MP157F-DK2: AES-256-XTS: xts-aes-neonbs 13.2 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] xts(stm32-ecb-aes) 3.1 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] AES-128-CBC-ESSIV: essiv(cbc-aes-neonbs,sha256-lib) 14.7 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM NEON] essiv(stm32-cbc-aes,sha256-lib) 3.2 MB/s [Offload, STM32 crypto engine] Adiantum: adiantum(xchacha12-arm,aes-arm,nhpoly1305-neon) 52.8 MB/s [CPU-based, ARM scalar + NEON] So, there was no case in which the crypto engine was even *close* to being faster. On the first three, which have AES instructions in the CPU, the CPU was 30 to 55 times faster (!). Even on STM32MP157F-DK2 which has a Cortex-A7 CPU that doesn't have AES instructions, AES was over 4 times faster on the CPU. And Adiantum encryption, which is what actually should be used on CPUs like that, was over 17 times faster. Other justifications that have been given for these non-inline crypto engines (almost always coming from the hardware vendors, not actual users) don't seem very plausible either: - The crypto engine throughput could be improved by processing multiple requests concurrently. Currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't do that. This would also be complex, and unhelpful in many cases. 2 of the 4 engines I tested even had only one queue. - Some of the engines, e.g. STM32, support hardware keys. Also currently irrelevant to fscrypt, since it doesn't support these. Interestingly, the STM32 driver itself doesn't support this either. - Free up CPU for other tasks and/or reduce energy usage. Not very plausible considering the "short" message length, driver overhead, and scheduling overhead. There's just very little time for the CPU to do something else like run another task or enter low-power state, before the message finishes and it's time to process the next one. - Some of these engines resist power analysis and electromagnetic attacks, while the CPU-based crypto generally does not. In theory, this sounds great. In practice, if this benefit requires the use of an off-CPU offload that massively regresses performance and has a low-quality, buggy driver, the price for this hardening (which is not relevant to most fscrypt users, and tends to be incomplete) is just too high. Inline crypto engines are much more promising here, as are on-CPU solutions like RISC-V High Assurance Cryptography. Fixes: b30ab0e03407 ("ext4 crypto: add ext4 encryption facilities") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250704070322.20692-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> Conflicts: Documentation/filesystems/fscrypt.rst fs/crypto/fscrypt_private.h fs/crypto/hkdf.c [Context changed] Signed-off-by: Yongjian Sun <sunyongjian1@huawei.com> | 10 个月前 | |
fscrypt: use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON As per Linus's suggestion (https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=whefxRGyNGzCzG6BVeM=5vnvgb-XhSeFJVxJyAxAF8XRA@mail.gmail.com), use WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON. This barely adds any extra overhead, and it makes it so that if any of these ever becomes reachable (they shouldn't, but that's the point), the logs can't be flooded. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230320233943.73600-1-ebiggers@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com> | 3 年前 |
| 文件 | 最后提交记录 | 最后更新时间 |
|---|---|---|
| 5 年前 | ||
| 5 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 1 年前 | ||
| 10 个月前 | ||
| 10 个月前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 3 年前 | ||
| 10 个月前 | ||
| 10 个月前 | ||
| 3 年前 |